Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I'm not suggesting to ignore free agency. I'm saying the opposite, pay more attention -- more attention to the ones not getting that much attention -- hence the "low profile" players.

What I do sort of suggest to ignore (more like stay away from) - are the free agents demanding huge contracts.

For role players, 100% agree with you. To ignore prospective starters, those who have proved it elsewhere yet fit A)team needs, B) the right profile (youth, character, etc) and C) the budget, is just as foolish as blindly spending.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

For role players, 100% agree with you. To ignore prospective starters, those who have proved it elsewhere yet fit A)team needs, B) the right profile (youth, character, etc) and C) the budget, is just as foolish as blindly spending.

I think we just have 2 different approaches. You would consider giving a free agent a huge contract. I wouldn't. Not anymore I wouldn't. I just consider this a mistake that the redskins have been making what it seems like forever to me. You just don't see it the same way. I think we wil see what the redskins will do and if it works out or not.

But I'll be honest, if i'm proven right either way. I'll exercise my bragging rights. Hopefully it won't be a consolation to a redskins losing season.

And to correct someones post recently and so some fans don't go around spewing incorrect redskins trivia - Gary Clark and Santana moss were not redskins free agent pickups

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I think we just have 2 different approaches. You would consider giving a free agent a huge contract. I wouldn't. Not anymore I wouldn't. I just consider this a mistake that the redskins have been making what it seems like forever to me. You just don't see it the same way. I think we wil see what the redskins will do and if it works out or not.

But I'll be honest, if i'm proven right either way. I'll exercise my bragging rights. Hopefully it won't be a consolation to a redskins losing season.

And to correct someones post recently and so some fans don't go around spewing incorrect redskins trivia - Gary Clark and Santana moss were not redskins free agent pickups

I see what your saying BUT if S.Rice is there and we obviously have a big need at WR, You wouldn't offer him a deal? He's 24 and has been a pretty good player. Drafting a WR is 50-50 but a proven one is out there for us to look at. I'm all for Drafting but we simply don't have enough picks this year to compete, either way we will be big players in FA again this off season.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

I see what your saying BUT if S.Rice is there and we obviously have a big need at WR, You wouldn't offer him a deal? He's 24 and has been a pretty good player. Drafting a WR is 50-50 but a proven one is out there for us to look at. I'm all for Drafting but we simply don't have enough picks this year to compete, either way we will be big players in FA again this off season.

The reason why I wouldn't give anyone a break-the-bank contract is the same reason why I would trade down in the first round to acquire more picks. It means the ability to pick up more quality players. I don't people realize that when you tie that much money up to one player it ends up hurting the team. Because it takes away the ability to improve the team in other areas. And god knows the redskins need to improve in almost every area of the team.

This has been my contention. But I'm
a Justin bieber kind of guy. I will never say never. There would be exceptions to this rule. But it would have to be a perfect situation.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

The reason why I wouldn't give anyone a break-the-bank contract is the same reason why I would trade down in the first round to acquire more picks. It means the ability to pick up more quality players. I don't people realize that when you tie that much money up to one player it ends up hurting the team. Because it takes away the ability to improve the team in other areas. And god knows the redskins need to improve in almost every area of the team.

This has been my contention. But I'm
a Justin bieber kind of guy. I will never say never. There would be exceptions to this rule. But it would have to be a perfect situation.

I think we all would want that. I would like to trade down to around 20 and take Locker plus pick up another 2nd.

[SOUL-SKINS]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

I think we all would want that. I would like to trade down to around 20 and take Locker plus pick up another 2nd.

Dude. Youre not going to pick up a second round pick just by swapping someones 20th pick with our 10th. Maybe a 4th or at best a 3rd

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

Dude. Youre not going to pick up a second round pick just by swapping someones 20th pick with our 10th. Maybe a 4th or at best a 3rd

A late 2nd? I bet you can

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

Dude. Youre not going to pick up a second round pick just by swapping someones 20th pick with our 10th. Maybe a 4th or at best a 3rd

depends who's there.. we traded our 21st pick for a 34 and 48 from ATL in 2008

I know that the draft value chart isn't concrete but that was a swap of 800 value for one of 980.. but the Falcs did have an extra pick they acquired elsewhere to give up

your example of 20 to 10.. 20 is 850 points, 10 is 1300.. let's just say it's an even trade at 450 points, you're looking at pick 45.. the first pick of round 4 is worth like 112 points, I'd say give or take 200 to figure out what might happen

of course there's been the whole next year's pick of higher value thing too

It really just depends who's on the board and what teams are looking at them. I could see 20 and a HIGH 3rd but I wouldn't take a 4th at all and even with the 3rd I'd be looking at another high round pick or at least swap with them.